IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Figure A.3.1: Potential effectiveness of land –based biological CDR (based on upper limits from Lenton, 2010). This talk will summarise these studies and finish by identifying some discussion points concerning the treatment of landbased CDR in the <strong>IPCC</strong> 5th Assessment Report. References Hangx S.J.T., and C.J. Spiers, 2009: Coastal spreading of olivine to control atmospheric CO2 concentrations: A critical analysis of viability. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 757–767. (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.07.001). Hartmann J., and S. Kempe, 2008: What is the maximum potential for CO 2 sequestration by “stimulated” weathering on the global scale? Naturwissenschaften 95, 1159–1164. (DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0434-4). Lehmann J., J. Gaunt, and M. Rondon, 2006: Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems – A Review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11, 395–419. (DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5). Lenton T.M., 2010: The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Management 1, 145–160. Schuiling R., and P. Krijgsman, 2006: Enhanced Weathering: An Effective and Cheap Tool to Sequester Co 2. Climatic Change 74, 349–354. (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-3485-y). The Royal Society, 2009: Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society, London, UK. 82 pp., (ISBN: 9780854037735). Zeng N., 2008: Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance and Management 3, 1. <strong>IPCC</strong> <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering - 29
Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Keynote II-3: Industrial CO2 Removal: CO2 Capture from Ambient Air and Geological James J Dooley Senior Staff Scientist, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, Maryland, USA INTRODUCTION This abstract and its accompanying presentation, which were prepared as inputs for the <strong>IPCC</strong>’s June 2011 <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering, will provide an overview of two distinct industrial processes for removing carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the atmosphere as a means of addressing anthropogenic climate change. The first of these is carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) coupled with large-scale biomass production (hereafter referred to as bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECSS)). The second CCS coupled to a system that captures CO 2 from ambient air via industrial systems (hereafter referred to as direct air capture (DAC)). In both systems, the captured CO 2 would be injected into deep geologic formations so as to isolate it from the atmosphere. The technical literature is clear that both BECSS and DAC (including their necessary CCS components) are technically feasible as of today (<strong>IPCC</strong>, 2005; Keith et al., 2006; Lackner, 2009; Luckow et al., 2010; Ranjan and Herzog, 2011; The Royal Society, 2009). The technical literature on DAC and BECSS typically envisions these systems being deployed after the middle of this century and typically in “overshoot scenarios” or in scenarios that stabilize radiative forcing at very low levels (Azar et al., 2010; K. Calvin et al., 2009). What is uncertain is the relative cost of BECSS and DAC systems when compared to other emissions mitigation measures, the ultimate timing and scale of their deployment, net lifecycle emissions from these systems, and the resolution of potential site specific constraints that would impact their ultimate commercial deployment. BECCS: Considerable concern has been expressed in the technical literature about the inherent conflict between using land to grow food to feed a growing global population and using land to grow energy crops. Concerns have been expressed in terms of: broad sustainability issues including environmental justice and equity concerns (see for example, Adger et al., 2006; Toth, 1999), whether or not there will be net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large scale bioenergy production and consumption (Melillo et al., 2009), whether it is possible to move the required volumes of biomass (Richard, 2010) and even in terms of technical feasibility given a changing climate that could result in lower net primary productivity over large swaths of the earth’s prime agricultural areas (Lobell and Asner, 2003; Solomon et al., 2009). While not minimizing these concerns, it is important to note that most of these adverse impacts will become manifest at large levels of bioenergy production (e.g., on the order of 100s of EJ/year) and there are steps that can be taken to minimize the worst of these impacts. For example Wise et al. (2009) demonstrated that a climate policy that places an equal value on carbon emissions from the industrial sector as well as from agriculture and land use can simultaneously incentivize the large scale production of bioenergy as well as incentivize afforestation and protect carbon already stored in above ground and below ground biomass and soils. While Luckow et al (2010) make it clear that “The ability to draw on a diverse set of biomass-based feedstocks helps to reduce the pressure for drastic large-scale changes in landuse and the attendant environmental, ecological, and economic consequences those changes would unleash.” However, to support BECSS on the scale of 100s of EJ/year would require large bioenergy plantations and significant international trade in bioenergy feedstocks, which could imply significant changes in key global ecosystems (see for example, Thomson et al., 2010). However by adopting technologies that would push densification, dehydration, and pelletization of the purpose grown biomass early into the harvesting process large scale international trade in biomass should be possible and thus there would not need to be a strict correspondence between where the bioenergy crops are grown and where the bioenergy crops are used and therefore where the CO 2 needs to be stored in suitable deep geologic formations (Hamelinck et al., 2005; Luckow et al., 2010). The extent to which there are continued improvements in crop productivity including efforts to enhance the efficiency of natural photosynthesis will be a significant determinant in the extent to how much bioenergy can be produced (Berndes et al., 2003; Blankenship et al., 2011; Thomson et al., 2010; Wise et al., 2009) and therefore on the cost and market potential for BECSS. According to the literature surveyed here, large scale BECSS production on this scale should be well underway at carbon permit prices less than $100/tCO 2 (Krey and K. Riahi, 2009; Luckow et al., 2010). DAC: There are a number of excellent recent summaries of various DAC system concepts that can provide a robust introduction to DAC technologies (<strong>IPCC</strong>, 2005; Ranjan and Herzog, 2011; Socolow et al., 2011; The Royal Society, 2009). At their most basic level, DAC systems use a chemical solvent to selectively remove CO 2 from the ambient air, that solvent is then regenerated releasing a concentrated CO 2 stream, which then is compressed most likely to a supercritical fluid and then injected into the deep subsurface and monitored for long-term permanence. Ranjan and Herzog (2011) as well as Socolow et. al., (2011) estimate that the cost of deploying DAC systems capable of removing hundreds of millions to billions of tCO 2/year from the atmosphere in the range of $600-$1200/tCO 2, while others have placed the cost of DAC systems within a much lower range. Keith et al., (2006) reports a cost of $50-130tCO 2, while Lackner (2009) reports costs in the range of $30-$200/tCO 2. The difference in costs between these two views as to the ultimate economic feasibility of <strong>IPCC</strong> <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering - 30
Page 1 and 2: IPCC Exper
Page 3 and 4: Cover photo courtesy of Edgar Asenc
Page 5 and 6: This Meeting Repor
Page 8: Table of Contents Preface .........
Page 11 and 12: Summary of the Synthesis Report 1.
Page 13 and 14: Summary of the Synthesis Report
Page 15 and 16: Summary of the Synthesis Report met
Page 18 and 19: Annex 1: Meeting P
Page 20: Annex1: Meeting Pr
Page 23 and 24: Annex 2: Agenda 14:25-14:45 Keynote
Page 26 and 27: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts FRAMING
Page 28 and 29: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Keynote
Page 30 and 31: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Kravitz
Page 32 and 33: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Since th
Page 34 and 35: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Referenc
Page 36 and 37: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Nordhaus
Page 40 and 41: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts DAC syst
Page 42 and 43: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts The Roya
Page 44 and 45: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts One step
Page 50 and 51: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts be termi
Page 52 and 53: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Albedo en
Page 54 and 55: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Categoriz
Page 56 and 57: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Climate c
Page 58 and 59: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Aerosols
Page 60 and 61: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Reference
Page 62 and 63: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Krull E.,
Page 64 and 65: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Potential
Page 66 and 67: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Cloud-res
Page 68 and 69: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Groundwat
Page 70 and 71: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Public pe
Page 72 and 73: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Reference
Page 74 and 75: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Understan
Page 76: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Sarmiento
Page 79 and 80: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Bre
Page 85 and 86: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Rel
Page 89 and 90:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports 3.
Page 91 and 92:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports The
Page 93 and 94:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports The
Page 95 and 96:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Tab
Page 97 and 98:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Bre
Page 99 and 100:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Loc
Page 101 and 102:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports In
Page 103 and 104:
Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Au
Page 105 and 106:
IPCC Exper
Page 107 and 108:
Annex 6: List of Participants Thoma
show all

IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?